Catholics and the literal interpretion of Genesis (doctrine, woman, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are Catholics still expected to believe in the literal interpretation of Adam's Original Sin as it is described in Genesis? Or is it recognized as just a story?
Are Catholics still expected to believe in the literal interpretation of Adam's Original Sin as it is described in Genesis? Or is it recognized as just a story?
Nope. Even back in the late 50s and early 60s we were taught it was allegorical.
I was amazed to find out there were people alive today who consider it to be real. There are a handful here on CD who do. It still boggles my brain when I come across one.
ETA: I was responding to a literal Genesis, as your post originally stated - not just the Original sin aspect.
>>Nope. Even back in the late 50s and early 60s we were taught it was allegorical.<<
RESPONSE: Only allegorical you say? So Adam and Eve's original sin is just a story. And the Immaculate Conception about Mary being preserve from the guilt of Original Sin thatr doesnt exist isn't true either? Doesn't that logically follow from what you say?
>>I was amazed to find out there were people alive today who consider it to be real. There are a handful here on CD who do. It still boggles my brain when I come across one. <<
RESPONSE: Yes. Like Pope Pius X and the cardinals who belonged to the Pontifical Biblical Commission.
ETA: I was responding to a literal Genesis, as your post originally stated - not just the Original sin aspect.
RESPONSE Actually Pope Pius X seems to be telling us infallibly that we must believe it.
Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis -- June 30, 1909
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative.
MOTU OWN OF POPE PIUS X Praestantia Scripturae “For this, we see it necessary to declare and decree, as hereby expressly declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Council , both which have been given, and to those that will be enacted in the future in the same way that the decrees of the Sacred Congregations concerning doctrine approved by the Pontiff; and that those who oppose such decisions verbally or in writing, cannot avoid the note so much disobedience, much of recklessness, nor therefore are exempt from negligence; This regardless of the scandal which cause and consequences that may incur before God for more boldness and error pronounced in addition, as happens in most cases.”
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-20-2015 at 10:02 AM..
RESPONSE Actually Pope Pius X seems to be telling us infallibly that we must believe it.
Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis -- June 30, 1909
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative.
MOTU OWN OF POPE PIUS X Praestantia Scripturae “For this, we see it necessary to declare and decree, as hereby expressly declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Council , both which have been given, and to those that will be enacted in the future in the same way that the decrees of the Sacred Congregations concerning doctrine approved by the Pontiff; and that those who oppose such decisions verbally or in writing, cannot avoid the note so much disobedience, much of recklessness, nor therefore are exempt from negligence; This regardless of the scandal which cause and consequences that may incur before God for more boldness and error pronounced in addition, as happens in most cases.”
RESPONSE: Not at all. It's the plain meaning of words which can be universally understood. It's what Catholics MUST believe because the Pope and Magisterium said so, right?
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-20-2015 at 10:06 AM..
Reason: typo
RESPONSE: Not at all. It's the plain meaning of words which can be universally understood. It's what Catholics MUST believe because the Pope and Magisterium said so, right?
Many Catholics would argue that the plain meaning isn't that plain.
Many Catholics would argue that the plain meaning isn't that plain.
RESPONSE: Then they would be playing what has been termed "Catholic let's pretend" which some Catholic apologists and clergy attempt when they are asked about this or other dogmatic blunders.
But maybe Catholics will believe the further claim of Pius X regarding any who reject his literal biblical Original Sin teaching that:
"...and that those who oppose such decisions verbally or in writing, can not avoid the note so much disobedience, much of recklessness, nor therefore are exempt from negligence; This regardless of the scandal which cause and consequences that may incur before God for more boldness and error pronounced in addition, as happens in most cases."
It's plain and might be an ex cathedra teaching.
But of course, if the Pope is wrong, then the dogma of Oriiginal Sin is in error. And if that is in error, then the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in which Mary alone was said to have been preserved from Original Sin, is also in error., which if the sin of our first perants that caused Original Sin really never existed is correct.
Catholics can't reject the Genesis Original Sin teaching yet keep the Immaculate Conception story .
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 10-20-2015 at 10:34 AM..
Reason: typo
You realize he was speaking from a logical point of view, right? He wasn't saying that they COULDN'T do it...as much as he was saying that it wasn't logically consistent. Nobody is saying a Catholic CAN'T do anything.
Nope. Even back in the late 50s and early 60s we were taught it was allegorical.
I was amazed to find out there were people alive today who consider it to be real. There are a handful here on CD who do. It still boggles my brain when I come across one.
ETA: I was responding to a literal Genesis, as your post originally stated - not just the Original sin aspect.
The New Testament writers and Jesus believed the Genesis account to be literal. Ever read the Apostle Paul's use of the historic Adam? Read Romans chapter 5
Luk_3:38 of Enosh, of Seth, of Adam, of God."
Rom_5:14 nevertheless death reigns from Adam unto Moses, over those also who do not sin in the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him Who is about to be."
1Co_15:22 For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified."
1Co_15:45 If there is a soulish body, there is a spiritual also. Thus it is written also, The first man, Adam, "became a living soul:the last Adam a vivifying Spirit."
1Ti_2:13 (for Adam was first molded, thereafter Eve,
1Ti_2:14 and Adam was not seduced, yet the woman, being deluded, has come to be in the transgression)."
Jud_1:14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesies to these also, saying, "Lo! the Lord came among ten thousand of His saints,
If Adam didn't literally sin, then a lot of theology of the New Testament goes right out the window. Of course it doesn't really surprise me that some Catholics wouldn't actually believe either the New or Old Testaments. I was raised Catholic and was taught better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
